WTC 7 proof positive no inside job

I work in the melt shop of a steel mill

I am telling you a building could not catch fire lmao then fall down the way it did

I'd like for you maybe cut some cold steel or understand the melting process of steel

Originally posted by ADUB77
I work in the melt shop of a steel mill

I am telling you a building could not catch fire lmao then fall down the way it did

I'd like for you maybe cut some cold steel or understand the melting process of steel

I thought it was pretty obvious that it was not the steel itself that was on fire, and the steel also did not melt, but became slightly softened, which has been proven to reduce the load capacity of the structure in those areas from 50-80 percent, meaning once that set of really hot floors starts to feel a little to heavy, the steel fails and then the penthouse falls in on the building. If you look at the video of the WTC 7 collapse closely, you'll see the windows shattering out as the penthouse section collapsed down the inside. Then, at the exact moment that the penthouse and its respective floors it had been ripping apart by being way too heavy and with too much momentum to be stopped, it hits the base, causing the main structure to fail and resulting in the whole building coming down.

Originally posted by Varemia
I thought it was pretty obvious that it was not the steel itself that was on fire, and the steel also did not melt, but became slightly softened, which has been proven to reduce the load capacity of the structure in those areas from 50-80 percent, meaning once that set of really hot floors starts to feel a little to heavy, the steel fails and then the penthouse falls in on the building. If you look at the video of the WTC 7 collapse closely, you'll see the windows shattering out as the penthouse section collapsed down the inside. Then, at the exact moment that the penthouse and its respective floors it had been ripping apart by being way too heavy and with too much momentum to be stopped, it hits the base, causing the main structure to fail and resulting in the whole building coming down.

Regardless of how hot the fires got, or how soft the steel became, the building could not have landed in its own footprint unless it was controlled.

All four outer wall of WTC 7 landed ON TOP of the rest of the destroyed building, this is not possible unless the building is imploded in the correct timed sequence.

Also your analysis of the steel getting soft enough to fail is not based on any experience because steel does not behave that way. When steel fails it sags and bends and deforms obviously over a long period of time, it doesn't stay in place and suddenly fail within seconds. Also you fail to understand the ability of a building to hold its own weight plus at least its own weight again, this is called a safety margin, and 2x is the minimum ever used.

If your hypothesis were correct then the complete asymmetrical collapse, with most of the building landing in its own footprint, from fire would be a common occurrence, and would not have been unique to the WTC complex on 9-11-01. Controlled Demolition Inc., would be out of business, and no buildings would be constructed of steel ever again.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ANOK

 

ANOK, you are just obsessed with your interpretation of the collapse of WTC 7. Doesn't the fact that NIST and the American Society of Civil Engineers, 120,000 plus membership, ( and the Institute of Civil Engineers in my country come to that ) do not agree with you give you pause for thought ?

How do you know they don't agree with me. Did they even mention the final outcome of the collapse?

Of course not and appealing to authority doesn't make you or them right or me wrong. Go learn something and stop appealing to authority.

Anyway, not that this thread was about that; it was about the circumstantial evidence showing that a cd of WTC was absurd and you haven't addressed those circumstances at all except to suggest that the perps were prepared to blow up WTC 7 without any cover on the basis that no-one would notice !

Nice cop out. Yes it is about that. You keep asking this silly question and refusing to look at real evidence.
Are you scared of real evidence? Are you looking for the truth, or do you just want to argue? Your 'circumstantial evidence' means absolutely squat against direct evidence...



Now deny that the outer walls are on top of the debris pile. When you can't do that show me how that can happen from an uncontrolled collapse, using physics not assumptions and wild guesses. Your 'circumstantial evidence' is meaningless.

Originally posted by ANOK
You need to show evidence I'm wrong.

No, you have to show evidence your claim is correct - ie. You have to prove your claim, it is not up to others to disprove it. Which you are unable to do....

How do all four outer walls end up on top of the debris pile, land in its own footprint, from a natural collapse due to fire

Very easily, just look at WTC 7 - see, I answered your question, now you have to prove it could not happen the way it did! But you are unable to do that....

I think either the original poster is deluded or is one of the people involved

Originally posted by ANOKAlso your analysis of the steel getting soft enough to fail is not based on any experience because steel does not behave that way. When steel fails it sags and bends and deforms obviously over a long period of time, it doesn't stay in place and suddenly fail within seconds. Also you fail to understand the ability of a building to hold its own weight plus at least its own weight again, this is called a safety margin, and 2x is the minimum ever used.

I thought the testimony from the firefighters proved this. Three floors were bowing outward, there ya go mista sir. It wasn't an instant deformation, it took hours, and then a few more hours to finally give out. How is this not proof of a non-demolition collapse?

reply to post by Varemia


Add to that the surveyor transit placed on the building, the sounds of creaking, bulging ocurring, and a more pronounced lean to the side, all point to gradual structural failure (AKA creep) from the fires. Even firefighters saw or noticed the tilt:

Originally posted by Alfie1


Is it not obvious that WTC 7 was collateral damage flowing from the terrorist attacks on WTC 1&2 ?

No.

It is not obvious.

It is pretty much the opposite.

Originally posted by Dennislp3

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by The_Zomar
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1637b3ed1200.jpg[/atsimg]

This image always speaks volumes. Notice building 3 did not collapse, look at it's placement compared to building 1 an 2.

People actually think building 7 caught on fire from debris and burnt to the ground? It's laughable that people would be so gullible.

Why are so many people in denial that Building 3 collapsed on 9/11. It did.

Is it because it doesn't fit in with your controlled demolition theories?

911research.wtc7.net...

does that look collapsed to you?

how do you people not see what happened...you offer no proof...you simply say what you were told by others...all you did was say building 3 collapsed.....evidence please?

Are you being serious or are you making a joke??

That used to be a 22 story tall bulding, one city block long.

The piece of it left in the picture is 3 stories tall and about 1/20th of a city block long.

Your own photograph is the evidence. Can you not see with your own eyes that all that is left of a 22 story building is a very small section of 3 floors that were reinforced with steel after the 1993 bombing?

reply to post by Alfie1

The idea that WTC 7 was going to be demolished willy nilly in the cold light of day is absurd.

You certainly are entitle to your “opinions” and that’s all you have presented in your opening post. (Your opinions!)

Your title to your thread:

WTC 7 proof positive no inside job

It is terribly “misleading.” You have not provided any proof that WTC 7 was not an inside job. But again only gave your opinions to what you think happened.

People like me are on a fact finding mission, and like you, everyone has an opinion.

Your ridiculous excuse to disregard the demolition of WTC 7 by saying:

Similarly absurd is the idea sometimes put forward that the purpose of destroying WTC 7 was to hide secrets contained therein. Is blowing up somewhere and distributing stuff over half Manhattan the optimum way of dealing with secrets ?

Is simply ridiculous.

I would like to steer the ATS readers to go to a very credible website where professionals who understand building design and construction, and who have science to support their professional opinions, all of these experts support demolition and the science that confirms it.

Those who disagree there were no explosions and no credible eyewitness who did see flashes, explosions, and shockwaves are in complete denial or just playing a game.

I suppose some of you will call police officers, who went on record, to have witnessed the demolition of WTC 7 a liar as well, without given us any proof to why you think they are lying.

It is vey obvious WTC 7 was demolished by a controlled demolition. Many people knew in advance that WTC 7 was coming down and there is no disputing it.

[color=gold]Precognitive dissonance how did so many know building 7 would fall?

Witnesses on the scene included construction workers, firefighters, and police. One witness, a first-year New York University medical student named Daryl, was interviewed for WINS NYC News Radio live on the evening of September 11, 2001:
“We were watching the building [WTC 7] actually ‘cause it was on fire…. The bottom floors of the building were on fire and…we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder…turned around— we were shocked to see that the building was – ah – well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building, and all the windows started busted out. It was horrifying,” he said. “About a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that… We saw the building crash all the way to the ground. We were in shock.”

The “sound of a clap of thunder” and “the presence of a “shock wave ripping through the building” are indicative of an explosive blast, as is the shattering of windows.
In this startling landmark 9/11 video clip captured by CNN, a construction worker turns around after hearing an explosion from WTC 7 and notes “Did you hear that?

Keep your eye on that building. It’ll be coming down soon….” A police officer on the scene then says, “the building is about to blow up. Move it back. Flame and debris coming down.”
Apparently whoever notified this officer also warned FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti who said, “We’re moving the command post over this way. That building’s coming down.”

www.ae911truth.org...

reply to post by GenRadek

Add to that the surveyor transit placed on the building, the sounds of creaking, bulging ocurring, and a more pronounced lean to the side, all point to gradual structural failure (AKA creep) from the fires. Even firefighters saw or noticed the tilt:

Heard this first hand at a seminar at which the incident commander at WTC 7 told us the very same thing

Were watching building burn all day - by 2 in afternoon could see bulge in SW corner indicated was becoming
unstable. Continue to watch building for little while until confirmed - set up collapse zone and started clearing area around WTC 7 at 3pm

reply to post by impressme


Now see, unfortunately for you, none of what you posted is indicative of an inside job. They knew the building would collapse for hours because they're not idiots. They could see that it was losing structural integrity. The shock wave was the penthouse breaking loose and crashing into the floors below.

Buuut, I'm sure no "real" conspiracy theorist would ever consider the logical outlook on the event, just taking things out of context and calling it gold. (note, not directed solely at you, but at anyone who sees this evidence and still cannot stop thinking it was a demo) Honestly, the only way a reasonable, clear-headed person could deny the evidence is if he is religious about the situation, in which case nothing he (again, no one specific) says can be trusted as a sound argument.

Originally posted by impressme
Witnesses on the scene included construction workers, firefighters, and police. One witness, a first-year New York University medical student named Daryl, was interviewed for WINS NYC News Radio live on the evening of September 11, 2001:
“We were watching the building [WTC 7] actually ‘cause it was on fire…. The bottom floors of the building were on fire and…we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder…turned around— we were shocked to see that the building was – ah – well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building, and all the windows started busted out. It was horrifying,” he said. “About a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that… We saw the building crash all the way to the ground. We were in shock.”

The noise and shockwave was the penthouse collapsing - a simple point conspiracy theorists constantly ignore. And the fireman knew it was coming down due to the noises it was making and the bulging...

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by technical difficulties
"The Buildings fell perfectly within their own footprints", or "The Buildings fell at freefall speeds".

Well WTC 7 DID fall into its own footprint, not perfectly as that is impossible. If all four outer walls end up ON TOP of the debris pile then the majority of the building fell in its footprint, an impossible feat unless controlled...



And also WTC 7 did fall at free-fall speed for a few seconds, as admitted by NIST...

www2.ae911truth.org...

Maybe you should do more research before denying everything...

edit on 9/11/2010 by ANOK because: typo

Falling for a period of a free fall is not the same as falling in free fall, unless you're implying that they detonated the building as it feel to the ground, which is really pointless. see as it is, falling to the ground. Also, 9/11 denialists really have no right to tell anyone they're anything anything. Yes, we get it, no one has never seen a building collapse from a fire started by falling debris from another building, but that doesn't mean you have to make things up about how it was demolished with top secret explosives by a crack team of agents with no evidence to back it up. For a group called the Truth Movement, you guys sure do lie a lot. Maybe if you guys weren't so dishonest, you would've gotten another investigation.

If you did actual research as opposed to just going to websites that agree with you, you would know that.

reply to post by Alfie1


I fail to see how the destruction of WTC7 was absurd considering what was in that building. I remain convinced the WTC towers were merely a distraction from the real target. That being the SEC and other government offices in building 7.

Without the destruction of WTC7 there is no way the perpetrators could have gotten away so easily with their crimes.

Ask yourself this. Given the emergency response facilities in WTC7 why didn't Giuliani and his team go there to direct rescue operations? It would seem to be the logical place to do it considering that was what the bunker was designed for. And it was on site.

The fact they didn't go there should be enough evidence they knew it was going to come down before the planes had even hit the towers.

Originally posted by belial259
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Ask yourself this. Given the emergency response facilities in WTC7 why didn't Giuliani and his team go there to direct rescue operations? It would seem to be the logical place to do it considering that was what the bunker was designed for. And it was on site.

The fact they didn't go there should be enough evidence they knew it was going to come down before the planes had even hit the towers.

I'm sorry, but that literally made no sense at all. After the first plane hit, WTC 7 was evacuated... because a plane had just hit a building nearly right next to it. Once a tower collapsed and severely damaged WTC 7, no intelligent person would go back in there. Firefighters almost did, but as it has been proven, they were pulled back because they knew the building could come down at any moment. They could see that the water lines had been cut by the debris (which has been proven to be some substantial debris btw), and so they made no attempt to fight the fire, focusing more on reducing the collateral damage.

What you posted has no evidence to support it whatsoever. It's like saying "I decided not to go to the bathroom. That's evidence that there's a government spy working in my bathroom"

reply to post by belial259


When I referred to the idea of a cd of WTC 7 being " absurd ", I wasn't making any comment on motivation but that , on the facts , the perps evidently just planned to blow it up as it stood. The intervention of debris from WTC 1 hitting it was a chance event that could not have been planned. It is absurd to suppose that perps would do such a stupidly blatant thing.

Go to www.ae911truth.org... and you will find out that WTC 1 2 and 7 brought down by nanothermite and explosives.

reply to post by Sinterklaas


Please have a look at the subject of this thread. It is nothing to do with your nanothermite/explosive theories.